DaBeast on 4/3/2015 at 14:37
I've checked pretty much everything from 1999 to 2004 on moby.
Isometric, top-down, arcade, battlemech, sci-fi/futuristic.
Nothing seem's viable.
Is it possible that you played a demo of something that didn't get a full release? It's either that or you dreamt this game. It would really help if you remembered more about it. Like themes, story or really anything other than Battlemech game with a shit name and graphics that may or may not have been strategy-lite or arcade.
Briareos H on 4/3/2015 at 14:43
I suspect it was one of the thousands of shareware indie games out there at the time. Most of these don't have pages on mobygames, take (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KRz77Xev5E) Zulu Assault (one of the titles that might have fitted the bill) for example.
dj_ivocha on 5/3/2015 at 12:01
Yeah, I was also starting to think it might have been a demo or a shareware game, since I've also checked a lot on Mobygames and Wikipedia. I don't think it had any meaningful or "visible" story either (the way Demonstar, which I also used to play at the time, didn't). I really don't remember that much about it, which IS the big problem, after all. Considering it was most likely rather obscure, I was hoping someone here had personally played it, which is probably the only way to remember enough about it.
Take this mech - (
http://th09.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2012/244/2/6/light_mech_giat_quebec_by_shabazik-d5d8kkb.png), remove the torso and put a StarCraft vulture on top of the legs, then paint everything (light) green, then scale it down so in-game it looks about as big as said vulture, probably not more than 1.5x-2x bigger. That's sort of how I remember the mech looking.
demagogue on 5/3/2015 at 13:51
I had this issue with a game I'm pretty sure now is Golvellius, but watching LPs of it now it's much more primative than my memory of it. But by the numbers it should be it. I take it as a sign that my idea of what's awesome in a game was much different in 1988 than it is now.
WingedKagouti on 5/3/2015 at 14:33
Quote Posted by demagogue
I had this issue with a game I'm pretty sure now is Golvellius, but watching LPs of it now it's much more primative than my memory of it. But by the numbers it should be it. I take it as a sign that my idea of what's awesome in a game was much different in 1988 than it is now.
Nostalgia tends to taint our memory and taste often changes as we age.
demagogue on 5/3/2015 at 14:50
Not even just taste, but more like what would appear to be "high resolution" or "fluid animation", which is pretty impossible for me to see in this game now no matter how hard I try to put myself back in that time. I guess my frames of reference were an NES, 386, and C64. It's hard to go back to a mindset where those were the pinnacles of graphics.
But I mean, I remember the first time I saw something like the opening of Another World and thinking it was mindblowing.
WingedKagouti on 5/3/2015 at 15:59
Quote Posted by demagogue
Not even just taste, but more like what would appear to be "high resolution" or "fluid animation", which is pretty impossible for me to see in this game now no matter how hard I try to put myself back in that time. I guess my frames of reference were an NES, 386, and C64. It's hard to go back to a mindset where those were the pinnacles of graphics.
But I mean, I remember the first time I saw something like the opening of Another World and thinking it was mindblowing.
I still have some of my old (88-93) computer game magazines and rereading them can be funny. What constitutes "Spectacular Graphics" has indeed changed a lot since video games started. Input devices and the way games use them has evolved as well. Though it is harder to say how dramatic that change has actually been, a modern controller (or the M+KB setup) with contextual controls is a noticable leap from the way early games did things.
A non-game example of old "Spectacular Graphics" would be Dire Straits' (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0) Money For Nothing. Dat lip sync.
